Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 861

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 431

p-value2

age

86

50.40 ± 13.00 (25 - 74)

50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74)

50.51 ± 12.87 (28 - 73)

0.936

gender

86

0.476

f

61 (71%)

29 (67%)

32 (74%)

m

25 (29%)

14 (33%)

11 (26%)

occupation

86

0.902

day_training

2 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

full_time

10 (12%)

5 (12%)

5 (12%)

homemaker

6 (7.0%)

3 (7.0%)

3 (7.0%)

other

2 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.7%)

part_time

15 (17%)

7 (16%)

8 (19%)

retired

21 (24%)

10 (23%)

11 (26%)

self_employ

4 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

student

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.3%)

t_and_e

2 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

unemploy

23 (27%)

13 (30%)

10 (23%)

marital

86

0.686

cohabitation

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.3%)

divore

10 (12%)

7 (16%)

3 (7.0%)

in_relationship

1 (1.2%)

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

married

22 (26%)

10 (23%)

12 (28%)

none

46 (53%)

22 (51%)

24 (56%)

seperation

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

widow

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

edu

86

0.789

bachelor

25 (29%)

9 (21%)

16 (37%)

diploma

18 (21%)

11 (26%)

7 (16%)

hd_ad

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

postgraduate

7 (8.1%)

4 (9.3%)

3 (7.0%)

primary

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

secondary_1_3

10 (12%)

6 (14%)

4 (9.3%)

secondary_4_5

16 (19%)

8 (19%)

8 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.3%)

fam_income

86

0.890

10001_12000

4 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

3 (7.0%)

12001_14000

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

14001_16000

5 (5.8%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

16001_18000

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.7%)

18001_20000

4 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

1 (2.3%)

20001_above

14 (16%)

7 (16%)

7 (16%)

2001_4000

13 (15%)

9 (21%)

4 (9.3%)

4001_6000

10 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

6 (14%)

6001_8000

9 (10%)

5 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

8001_10000

7 (8.1%)

3 (7.0%)

4 (9.3%)

below_2000

12 (14%)

6 (14%)

6 (14%)

medication

86

76 (88%)

39 (91%)

37 (86%)

0.501

onset_duration

86

15.31 ± 10.90 (0 - 56)

16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56)

13.97 ± 9.56 (0 - 35)

0.255

onset_age

86

35.09 ± 14.00 (14 - 64)

33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58)

36.55 ± 15.09 (15 - 64)

0.337

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 861

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 431

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

86

3.07 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.05 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.858

recovery_stage_b

86

18.03 ± 2.64 (9 - 23)

17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23)

18.21 ± 2.53 (13 - 23)

0.543

ras_confidence

86

30.17 ± 4.73 (19 - 43)

29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40)

30.72 ± 5.12 (20 - 43)

0.286

ras_willingness

86

12.23 ± 1.94 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)

12.40 ± 2.01 (7 - 15)

0.439

ras_goal

86

17.63 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24)

17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

0.653

ras_reliance

86

13.09 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)

13.21 ± 3.00 (8 - 20)

0.702

ras_domination

86

9.93 ± 2.33 (3 - 15)

10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15)

9.44 ± 2.30 (3 - 14)

0.051

symptom

86

30.36 ± 9.77 (14 - 56)

31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55)

28.77 ± 9.47 (15 - 56)

0.131

slof_work

86

22.85 ± 4.85 (10 - 30)

22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30)

23.16 ± 5.25 (10 - 30)

0.552

slof_relationship

86

25.85 ± 5.89 (11 - 35)

25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35)

26.58 ± 5.80 (11 - 35)

0.251

satisfaction

86

20.60 ± 6.70 (5 - 32)

18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29)

22.35 ± 6.53 (5 - 32)

0.015

mhc_emotional

86

11.20 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17)

11.72 ± 3.98 (4 - 18)

0.197

mhc_social

86

15.06 ± 5.24 (6 - 30)

15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30)

14.98 ± 5.28 (6 - 26)

0.886

mhc_psychological

86

22.15 ± 5.86 (6 - 36)

21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)

22.74 ± 6.26 (6 - 36)

0.351

resilisnce

86

16.65 ± 4.47 (6 - 27)

16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)

17.02 ± 4.78 (7 - 27)

0.444

social_provision

86

13.72 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)

14.19 ± 3.22 (5 - 20)

0.130

els_value_living

86

17.15 ± 2.90 (5 - 25)

16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)

17.79 ± 3.26 (5 - 25)

0.040

els_life_fulfill

86

12.66 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)

11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)

13.79 ± 3.12 (4 - 20)

0.001

els

86

29.81 ± 5.58 (9 - 45)

28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36)

31.58 ± 5.96 (9 - 45)

0.003

social_connect

86

26.87 ± 9.17 (8 - 48)

27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45)

25.91 ± 10.02 (8 - 48)

0.332

shs_agency

86

14.62 ± 4.76 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)

15.49 ± 5.06 (3 - 24)

0.089

shs_pathway

86

16.58 ± 3.88 (4 - 24)

16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24)

17.14 ± 4.01 (4 - 23)

0.184

shs

86

31.20 ± 8.17 (7 - 47)

29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45)

32.63 ± 8.51 (7 - 47)

0.105

esteem

86

12.69 ± 1.52 (10 - 18)

12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)

12.44 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.137

mlq_search

86

15.02 ± 3.23 (3 - 21)

14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)

15.19 ± 3.42 (3 - 21)

0.643

mlq_presence

86

13.57 ± 4.09 (3 - 21)

13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)

13.81 ± 4.49 (3 - 21)

0.583

mlq

86

28.59 ± 6.51 (6 - 42)

28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40)

29.00 ± 7.14 (6 - 42)

0.565

empower

86

19.44 ± 4.03 (6 - 28)

18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24)

19.93 ± 4.51 (6 - 28)

0.264

ismi_resistance

86

14.78 ± 2.59 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19)

15.14 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

0.199

ismi_discrimation

86

11.44 ± 3.13 (5 - 19)

12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19)

10.47 ± 3.12 (5 - 19)

0.003

sss_affective

86

10.03 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

9.51 ± 3.87 (3 - 18)

0.194

sss_behavior

86

9.67 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.95 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.091

sss_cognitive

86

8.26 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

7.86 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

0.333

sss

86

27.97 ± 10.62 (9 - 54)

29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

26.33 ± 10.60 (9 - 54)

0.153

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.09

0.180

2.74, 3.45

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.047

0.255

-0.545, 0.452

0.855

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.222

0.267

-0.300, 0.745

0.407

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.250

0.377

-0.489, 0.990

0.510

Pseudo R square

0.022

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.418

17.0, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.349

0.592

-0.811, 1.51

0.557

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.341

0.582

-1.48, 0.800

0.560

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.962

0.823

-0.652, 2.58

0.247

Pseudo R square

0.023

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.753

28.2, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.09

1.065

-0.994, 3.18

0.307

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.309

0.802

-1.26, 1.88

0.702

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.16

1.134

-1.06, 3.39

0.310

Pseudo R square

0.033

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.302

11.5, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.326

0.427

-0.512, 1.16

0.448

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.706

0.297

-1.29, -0.124

0.021

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.792

0.420

-0.032, 1.61

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.037

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.462

16.6, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.279

0.653

-1.00, 1.56

0.670

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.955

0.520

-1.97, 0.063

0.071

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.84

0.735

0.401, 3.28

0.015

Pseudo R square

0.043

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.418

12.2, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.233

0.591

-0.925, 1.39

0.695

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.475

0.412

-0.333, 1.28

0.254

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.853

0.583

-0.290, 2.00

0.149

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.345

9.74, 11.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.977

0.488

-1.93, -0.019

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.572

0.449

-1.45, 0.307

0.208

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.70

0.634

0.456, 2.94

0.010

Pseudo R square

0.041

symptom

(Intercept)

32.0

1.483

29.0, 34.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.19

2.097

-7.30, 0.925

0.132

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.176

1.166

-2.11, 2.46

0.881

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.72

1.650

-4.96, 1.51

0.301

Pseudo R square

0.040

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.744

21.1, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.628

1.053

-1.43, 2.69

0.552

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.801

0.616

-2.01, 0.407

0.200

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.183

0.871

-1.52, 1.89

0.835

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

0.887

23.4, 26.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.47

1.254

-0.992, 3.92

0.246

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.972

0.863

-2.66, 0.720

0.266

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.20

1.221

-1.19, 3.60

0.329

Pseudo R square

0.029

satisfaction

(Intercept)

18.9

1.035

16.8, 20.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.49

1.463

0.620, 6.36

0.019

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.791

1.199

-1.56, 3.14

0.512

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.140

1.696

-3.46, 3.18

0.935

Pseudo R square

0.063

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.569

9.56, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.804

-0.530, 2.62

0.196

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.234

0.534

-0.813, 1.28

0.663

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.392

0.756

-1.87, 1.09

0.606

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.837

13.5, 16.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.163

1.184

-2.48, 2.16

0.891

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.924

-0.790, 2.83

0.274

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.823

1.307

-3.38, 1.74

0.531

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.952

19.7, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.19

1.347

-1.45, 3.83

0.381

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.708

1.000

-1.25, 2.67

0.482

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.389

1.415

-3.16, 2.38

0.784

Pseudo R square

0.009

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.673

15.0, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.744

0.951

-1.12, 2.61

0.436

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.050

0.720

-1.46, 1.36

0.945

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.25

1.019

-0.752, 3.24

0.227

Pseudo R square

0.026

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.441

12.4, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.930

0.624

-0.293, 2.15

0.139

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.782

0.527

-1.81, 0.250

0.143

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.921

0.745

-0.539, 2.38

0.221

Pseudo R square

0.053

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.5

0.455

15.6, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.28

0.643

0.019, 2.54

0.049

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.058

0.480

-0.883, 0.999

0.904

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.392

0.679

-0.939, 1.72

0.566

Pseudo R square

0.056

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.5

0.464

10.6, 12.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.26

0.657

0.968, 3.54

0.001

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.917

0.466

0.005, 1.83

0.054

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.590

0.659

-1.88, 0.700

0.374

Pseudo R square

0.112

els

(Intercept)

28.0

0.833

26.4, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.53

1.178

1.23, 5.84

0.003

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.937

0.800

-0.631, 2.51

0.247

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.140

1.131

-2.36, 2.08

0.902

Pseudo R square

0.098

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.8

1.421

25.1, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.93

2.010

-5.87, 2.01

0.339

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.426

1.195

-1.92, 2.77

0.723

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.78

1.690

-5.09, 1.53

0.297

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.734

12.3, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.74

1.038

-0.290, 3.78

0.096

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.075

0.758

-1.41, 1.56

0.921

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.547

1.072

-1.55, 2.65

0.612

Pseudo R square

0.041

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.589

14.9, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.12

0.833

-0.516, 2.75

0.183

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.106

0.596

-1.06, 1.27

0.860

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.188

0.842

-1.84, 1.46

0.825

Pseudo R square

0.018

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.246

27.3, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.86

1.763

-0.595, 6.32

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.185

1.240

-2.25, 2.61

0.882

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.370

1.753

-3.07, 3.81

0.834

Pseudo R square

0.033

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.214

12.5, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.488

0.303

-1.08, 0.106

0.110

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.008

0.319

-0.616, 0.632

0.980

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.317

0.450

-0.566, 1.20

0.486

Pseudo R square

0.024

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.497

13.9, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.326

0.703

-1.05, 1.70

0.644

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.386

0.583

-1.53, 0.757

0.511

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.016

0.825

-1.60, 1.63

0.985

Pseudo R square

0.006

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.624

12.1, 14.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.488

0.883

-1.24, 2.22

0.581

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.084

0.707

-1.47, 1.30

0.906

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.083

0.999

-1.88, 2.04

0.934

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.007

26.2, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.814

1.425

-1.98, 3.61

0.569

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.476

1.142

-2.71, 1.76

0.679

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.105

1.615

-3.06, 3.27

0.948

Pseudo R square

0.005

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.623

17.7, 20.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.977

0.881

-0.750, 2.70

0.270

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.109

0.572

-1.01, 1.23

0.850

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.469

0.808

-2.05, 1.12

0.564

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.382

13.7, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.721

0.540

-0.338, 1.78

0.185

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.034

0.509

-0.962, 1.03

0.946

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.053

0.719

-1.36, 1.46

0.942

Pseudo R square

0.022

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.469

11.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.95

0.664

-3.25, -0.652

0.004

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.624

0.491

-1.59, 0.338

0.209

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.848

0.694

-0.513, 2.21

0.228

Pseudo R square

0.073

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.551

9.48, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.05

0.779

-2.57, 0.480

0.182

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.062

0.524

-0.965, 1.09

0.906

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.15

0.741

-2.60, 0.303

0.127

Pseudo R square

0.048

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.4

0.579

9.26, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.44

0.819

-3.05, 0.164

0.081

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.224

0.602

-1.40, 0.956

0.712

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.539

0.851

-2.21, 1.13

0.530

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.65

0.569

7.54, 9.77

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.791

0.805

-2.37, 0.787

0.329

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.998

0.507

0.005, 1.99

0.055

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.88

0.717

-3.28, -0.470

0.012

Pseudo R square

0.050

sss

(Intercept)

29.6

1.584

26.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.28

2.240

-7.67, 1.11

0.147

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.919

1.379

-1.78, 3.62

0.508

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.61

1.950

-7.43, 0.213

0.070

Pseudo R square

0.054

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(126) = 17.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.45], t(126) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.75], t(126) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.63])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.99], t(126) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(126) = 42.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.51], t(126) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.80], t(126) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.58], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.10], t(126) = 39.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.18], t(126) = 1.03, p = 0.305; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.88], t(126) = 0.38, p = 0.700; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.39], t(126) = 1.02, p = 0.306; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.48, 12.66], t(126) = 39.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.16], t(126) = 0.76, p = 0.446; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.12], t(126) = -2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.61], t(126) = 1.88, p = 0.059; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.39], t(126) = 37.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.56], t(126) = 0.43, p = 0.669; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-1.97, 0.06], t(126) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.84, 95% CI [0.40, 3.28], t(126) = 2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.13, 1.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(126) = 31.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.39], t(126) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.28], t(126) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.00], t(126) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(126) = 30.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.93, -0.02], t(126) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.85, -8.58e-03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.31], t(126) = -1.27, p = 0.202; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [0.46, 2.94], t(126) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.75, 95% CI [0.20, 1.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.05, 34.86], t(126) = 21.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.19, 95% CI [-7.30, 0.92], t(126) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.46], t(126) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-4.96, 1.51], t(126) = -1.05, p = 0.296; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.08, 23.99], t(126) = 30.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.69], t(126) = 0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.01, 0.41], t(126) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.89], t(126) = 0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.38, 26.85], t(126) = 28.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.92], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.72], t(126) = -1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.60], t(126) = 0.98, p = 0.325; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.63])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.89], t(126) = 18.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.49, 95% CI [0.62, 6.36], t(126) = 2.38, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.09, 0.91])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.56, 3.14], t(126) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-3.46, 3.18], t(126) = -0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(126) = 18.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.62], t(126) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.28], t(126) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.09], t(126) = -0.52, p = 0.604; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.50, 16.78], t(126) = 18.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.48, 2.16], t(126) = -0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.83], t(126) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.82, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.74], t(126) = -0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.69, 23.42], t(126) = 22.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-1.45, 3.83], t(126) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.67], t(126) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-3.16, 2.38], t(126) = -0.28, p = 0.783; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(126) = 24.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.61], t(126) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.36], t(126) = -0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.75, 3.24], t(126) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(126) = 30.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.29, 2.15], t(126) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.73])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-1.81, 0.25], t(126) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.38], t(126) = 1.24, p = 0.216; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.80])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.40], t(126) = 36.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.02, 2.54], t(126) = 1.99, p = 0.047; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [6.16e-03, 0.83])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.00], t(126) = 0.12, p = 0.904; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.72], t(126) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(126) = 24.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.26, 95% CI [0.97, 3.54], t(126) = 3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [4.66e-03, 1.83], t(126) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [1.45e-03, 0.57])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-1.88, 0.70], t(126) = -0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.68], t(126) = 33.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.53, 95% CI [1.23, 5.84], t(126) = 3.00, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.51], t(126) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.36, 2.08], t(126) = -0.12, p = 0.901; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.05, 30.62], t(126) = 19.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.01], t(126) = -0.96, p = 0.337; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.92, 2.77], t(126) = 0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-5.09, 1.53], t(126) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(126) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.29, 3.78], t(126) = 1.68, p = 0.093; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.56], t(126) = 0.10, p = 0.921; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.55, 2.65], t(126) = 0.51, p = 0.610; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(126) = 27.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.75], t(126) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.27], t(126) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.46], t(126) = -0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.32, 32.21], t(126) = 23.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [-0.59, 6.32], t(126) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.61], t(126) = 0.15, p = 0.882; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-3.07, 3.81], t(126) = 0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(126) = 60.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.11], t(126) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.08])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.15e-03, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.63], t(126) = 0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = 5.85e-03, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.20], t(126) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.86])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.65e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.89, 15.83], t(126) = 29.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.05, 1.70], t(126) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.76], t(126) = -0.66, p = 0.508; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.60, 1.63], t(126) = 0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = 4.79e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(126) = 21.35, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.24, 2.22], t(126) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 1.30], t(126) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.88, 2.04], t(126) = 0.08, p = 0.934; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.16], t(126) = 27.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.98, 3.61], t(126) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.71, 1.76], t(126) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-3.06, 3.27], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.948; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.17], t(126) = 30.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.75, 2.70], t(126) = 1.11, p = 0.268; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.65])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.23], t(126) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.12], t(126) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(126) = 37.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.78], t(126) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.03], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.946; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.46], t(126) = 0.07, p = 0.941; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(126) = 26.46, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.65], t(126) = -2.94, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.34], t(126) = -1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.11])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.21], t(126) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.48, 11.64], t(126) = 19.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.48], t(126) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.09], t(126) = 0.12, p = 0.905; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.30], t(126) = -1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(126) = 17.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.16], t(126) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.96], t(126) = -0.37, p = 0.710; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.13], t(126) = -0.63, p = 0.527; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.77], t(126) = 15.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.37, 0.79], t(126) = -0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [4.52e-03, 1.99], t(126) = 1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [1.21e-03, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-3.28, -0.47], t(126) = -2.62, p = 0.009; Std. beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.13])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.50, 32.71], t(126) = 18.69, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.67, 1.11], t(126) = -1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.78, 3.62], t(126) = 0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.61, 95% CI [-7.43, 0.21], t(126) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

419.887

428.536

-206.944

413.887

recovery_stage_a

random

6

421.998

439.294

-204.999

409.998

3.890

3

0.274

recovery_stage_b

null

3

638.041

646.689

-316.020

632.041

recovery_stage_b

random

6

641.065

658.362

-314.533

629.065

2.975

3

0.395

ras_confidence

null

3

776.116

784.764

-385.058

770.116

ras_confidence

random

6

776.575

793.872

-382.288

764.575

5.541

3

0.136

ras_willingness

null

3

530.212

538.861

-262.106

524.212

ras_willingness

random

6

528.830

546.126

-258.415

516.830

7.383

3

0.061

ras_goal

null

3

653.750

662.398

-323.875

647.750

ras_goal

random

6

651.809

669.106

-319.905

639.809

7.941

3

0.047

ras_reliance

null

3

620.776

629.424

-307.388

614.776

ras_reliance

random

6

614.743

632.040

-301.372

602.743

12.033

3

0.007

ras_domination

null

3

588.467

597.115

-291.234

582.467

ras_domination

random

6

585.844

603.140

-286.922

573.844

8.623

3

0.035

symptom

null

3

928.954

937.602

-461.477

922.954

symptom

random

6

929.915

947.211

-458.957

917.915

5.039

3

0.169

slof_work

null

3

749.477

758.125

-371.738

743.477

slof_work

random

6

752.304

769.601

-370.152

740.304

3.172

3

0.366

slof_relationship

null

3

809.953

818.601

-401.976

803.953

slof_relationship

random

6

812.317

829.613

-400.158

800.317

3.636

3

0.304

satisfaction

null

3

868.078

876.727

-431.039

862.078

satisfaction

random

6

867.110

884.407

-427.555

855.110

6.968

3

0.073

mhc_emotional

null

3

687.890

696.538

-340.945

681.890

mhc_emotional

random

6

692.124

709.421

-340.062

680.124

1.766

3

0.622

mhc_social

null

3

802.767

811.415

-398.383

796.767

mhc_social

random

6

807.332

824.629

-397.666

795.332

1.434

3

0.698

mhc_psychological

null

3

832.751

841.400

-413.376

826.751

mhc_psychological

random

6

837.415

854.712

-412.707

825.415

1.337

3

0.720

resilisnce

null

3

745.509

754.158

-369.755

739.509

resilisnce

random

6

747.211

764.508

-367.605

735.211

4.298

3

0.231

social_provision

null

3

644.888

653.536

-319.444

638.888

social_provision

random

6

644.319

661.615

-316.159

632.319

6.569

3

0.087

els_value_living

null

3

642.785

651.433

-318.392

636.785

els_value_living

random

6

642.685

659.982

-315.343

630.685

6.099

3

0.107

els_life_fulfill

null

3

652.911

661.560

-323.456

646.911

els_life_fulfill

random

6

644.058

661.355

-316.029

632.058

14.853

3

0.002

els

null

3

800.308

808.956

-397.154

794.308

els

random

6

794.681

811.978

-391.341

782.681

11.627

3

0.009

social_connect

null

3

921.458

930.106

-457.729

915.458

social_connect

random

6

924.438

941.735

-456.219

912.438

3.020

3

0.389

shs_agency

null

3

765.618

774.266

-379.809

759.618

shs_agency

random

6

767.194

784.491

-377.597

755.194

4.424

3

0.219

shs_pathway

null

3

703.318

711.966

-348.659

697.318

shs_pathway

random

6

707.462

724.759

-347.731

695.462

1.856

3

0.603

shs

null

3

901.359

910.007

-447.680

895.359

shs

random

6

904.018

921.315

-446.009

892.018

3.341

3

0.342

esteem

null

3

465.508

474.157

-229.754

459.508

esteem

random

6

468.303

485.600

-228.152

456.303

3.205

3

0.361

mlq_search

null

3

669.586

678.235

-331.793

663.586

mlq_search

random

6

674.463

691.760

-331.231

662.463

1.124

3

0.771

mlq_presence

null

3

726.268

734.917

-360.134

720.268

mlq_presence

random

6

731.863

749.159

-359.931

719.863

0.406

3

0.939

mlq

null

3

853.064

861.713

-423.532

847.064

mlq

random

6

858.369

875.666

-423.184

846.369

0.696

3

0.874

empower

null

3

709.613

718.262

-351.807

703.613

empower

random

6

714.162

731.459

-351.081

702.162

1.451

3

0.694

ismi_resistance

null

3

610.532

619.180

-302.266

604.532

ismi_resistance

random

6

614.216

631.513

-301.108

602.216

2.316

3

0.510

ismi_discrimation

null

3

653.319

661.967

-323.659

647.319

ismi_discrimation

random

6

650.312

667.609

-319.156

638.312

9.006

3

0.029

sss_affective

null

3

686.387

695.035

-340.194

680.387

sss_affective

random

6

684.702

701.999

-336.351

672.702

7.685

3

0.053

sss_behavior

null

3

705.268

713.916

-349.634

699.268

sss_behavior

random

6

705.326

722.623

-346.663

693.326

5.942

3

0.114

sss_cognitive

null

3

691.195

699.843

-342.597

685.195

sss_cognitive

random

6

687.835

705.131

-337.917

675.835

9.360

3

0.025

sss

null

3

958.205

966.853

-476.102

952.205

sss

random

6

956.053

973.350

-472.026

944.053

8.152

3

0.043

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

43

3.09 ± 1.18

43

3.05 ± 1.18

0.855

0.047

recovery_stage_a

2nd

23

3.32 ± 1.17

-0.225

23

3.52 ± 1.17

-0.478

0.555

-0.206

recovery_stage_b

1st

43

17.86 ± 2.74

43

18.21 ± 2.74

0.557

-0.164

recovery_stage_b

2nd

23

17.52 ± 2.66

0.160

23

18.83 ± 2.66

-0.292

0.097

-0.616

ras_confidence

1st

43

29.63 ± 4.94

43

30.72 ± 4.94

0.307

-0.386

ras_confidence

2nd

23

29.94 ± 4.41

-0.109

23

32.19 ± 4.41

-0.520

0.085

-0.797

ras_willingness

1st

43

12.07 ± 1.98

43

12.40 ± 1.98

0.448

-0.313

ras_willingness

2nd

23

11.36 ± 1.73

0.678

23

12.48 ± 1.73

-0.082

0.030

-1.073

ras_goal

1st

43

17.49 ± 3.03

43

17.77 ± 3.03

0.670

-0.151

ras_goal

2nd

23

16.53 ± 2.75

0.518

23

18.65 ± 2.75

-0.481

0.010

-1.150

ras_reliance

1st

43

12.98 ± 2.74

43

13.21 ± 2.74

0.695

-0.161

ras_reliance

2nd

23

13.45 ± 2.39

-0.329

23

14.54 ± 2.39

-0.919

0.126

-0.751

ras_domination

1st

43

10.42 ± 2.26

43

9.44 ± 2.26

0.048

0.603

ras_domination

2nd

23

9.85 ± 2.15

0.353

23

10.57 ± 2.15

-0.696

0.256

-0.446

symptom

1st

43

31.95 ± 9.73

43

28.77 ± 9.73

0.132

0.789

symptom

2nd

23

32.13 ± 8.04

-0.044

23

27.22 ± 8.04

0.383

0.040

1.216

slof_work

1st

43

22.53 ± 4.88

43

23.16 ± 4.88

0.552

-0.294

slof_work

2nd

23

21.73 ± 4.08

0.375

23

22.54 ± 4.08

0.289

0.501

-0.379

slof_relationship

1st

43

25.12 ± 5.81

43

26.58 ± 5.81

0.245

-0.484

slof_relationship

2nd

23

24.14 ± 5.06

0.321

23

26.81 ± 5.06

-0.076

0.076

-0.882

satisfaction

1st

43

18.86 ± 6.79

43

22.35 ± 6.79

0.019

-0.817

satisfaction

2nd

23

19.65 ± 6.21

-0.185

23

23.00 ± 6.21

-0.153

0.070

-0.785

mhc_emotional

1st

43

10.67 ± 3.73

43

11.72 ± 3.73

0.196

-0.561

mhc_emotional

2nd

23

10.91 ± 3.21

-0.125

23

11.56 ± 3.21

0.085

0.491

-0.350

mhc_social

1st

43

15.14 ± 5.49

43

14.98 ± 5.49

0.891

0.050

mhc_social

2nd

23

16.16 ± 4.95

-0.312

23

15.17 ± 4.95

-0.060

0.501

0.301

mhc_psychological

1st

43

21.56 ± 6.24

43

22.74 ± 6.24

0.381

-0.336

mhc_psychological

2nd

23

22.27 ± 5.55

-0.201

23

23.06 ± 5.55

-0.090

0.627

-0.226

resilisnce

1st

43

16.28 ± 4.41

43

17.02 ± 4.41

0.436

-0.293

resilisnce

2nd

23

16.23 ± 3.94

0.020

23

18.22 ± 3.94

-0.470

0.089

-0.782

social_provision

1st

43

13.26 ± 2.89

43

14.19 ± 2.89

0.139

-0.495

social_provision

2nd

23

12.47 ± 2.67

0.416

23

14.32 ± 2.67

-0.074

0.020

-0.984

els_value_living

1st

43

16.51 ± 2.98

43

17.79 ± 2.98

0.049

-0.755

els_value_living

2nd

23

16.57 ± 2.65

-0.034

23

18.24 ± 2.65

-0.266

0.035

-0.987

els_life_fulfill

1st

43

11.53 ± 3.05

43

13.79 ± 3.05

0.001

-1.380

els_life_fulfill

2nd

23

12.45 ± 2.67

-0.561

23

14.12 ± 2.67

-0.200

0.036

-1.019

els

1st

43

28.05 ± 5.46

43

31.58 ± 5.46

0.003

-1.262

els

2nd

23

28.98 ± 4.73

-0.335

23

32.38 ± 4.73

-0.285

0.016

-1.212

social_connect

1st

43

27.84 ± 9.32

43

25.91 ± 9.32

0.339

0.465

social_connect

2nd

23

28.26 ± 7.82

-0.103

23

24.55 ± 7.82

0.326

0.110

0.894

shs_agency

1st

43

13.74 ± 4.81

43

15.49 ± 4.81

0.096

-0.654

shs_agency

2nd

23

13.82 ± 4.25

-0.028

23

16.11 ± 4.25

-0.234

0.070

-0.859

shs_pathway

1st

43

16.02 ± 3.86

43

17.14 ± 3.86

0.183

-0.533

shs_pathway

2nd

23

16.13 ± 3.39

-0.050

23

17.06 ± 3.39

0.039

0.355

-0.444

shs

1st

43

29.77 ± 8.17

43

32.63 ± 8.17

0.108

-0.658

shs

2nd

23

29.95 ± 7.15

-0.042

23

33.18 ± 7.15

-0.128

0.128

-0.743

esteem

1st

43

12.93 ± 1.41

43

12.44 ± 1.41

0.110

0.413

esteem

2nd

23

12.94 ± 1.39

-0.007

23

12.77 ± 1.39

-0.275

0.676

0.145

mlq_search

1st

43

14.86 ± 3.26

43

15.19 ± 3.26

0.644

-0.157

mlq_search

2nd

23

14.47 ± 2.99

0.186

23

14.82 ± 2.99

0.178

0.700

-0.164

mlq_presence

1st

43

13.33 ± 4.09

43

13.81 ± 4.09

0.581

-0.195

mlq_presence

2nd

23

13.24 ± 3.72

0.033

23

13.81 ± 3.72

0.000

0.604

-0.228

mlq

1st

43

28.19 ± 6.61

43

29.00 ± 6.61

0.569

-0.201

mlq

2nd

23

27.71 ± 6.01

0.117

23

28.63 ± 6.01

0.091

0.605

-0.227

empower

1st

43

18.95 ± 4.09

43

19.93 ± 4.09

0.270

-0.490

empower

2nd

23

19.06 ± 3.50

-0.054

23

19.57 ± 3.50

0.181

0.623

-0.255

ismi_resistance

1st

43

14.42 ± 2.51

43

15.14 ± 2.51

0.185

-0.391

ismi_resistance

2nd

23

14.45 ± 2.40

-0.019

23

15.23 ± 2.40

-0.047

0.276

-0.420

ismi_discrimation

1st

43

12.42 ± 3.08

43

10.47 ± 3.08

0.004

1.129

ismi_discrimation

2nd

23

11.79 ± 2.73

0.361

23

10.69 ± 2.73

-0.129

0.172

0.639

sss_affective

1st

43

10.56 ± 3.61

43

9.51 ± 3.61

0.182

0.571

sss_affective

2nd

23

10.62 ± 3.12

-0.034

23

8.42 ± 3.12

0.593

0.019

1.198

sss_behavior

1st

43

10.40 ± 3.80

43

8.95 ± 3.80

0.082

0.680

sss_behavior

2nd

23

10.17 ± 3.36

0.105

23

8.19 ± 3.36

0.360

0.048

0.934

sss_cognitive

1st

43

8.65 ± 3.73

43

7.86 ± 3.73

0.329

0.448

sss_cognitive

2nd

23

9.65 ± 3.17

-0.565

23

6.98 ± 3.17

0.497

0.005

1.510

sss

1st

43

29.60 ± 10.39

43

26.33 ± 10.39

0.147

0.684

sss

2nd

23

30.52 ± 8.78

-0.192

23

23.64 ± 8.78

0.561

0.009

1.436

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(120.85) = -0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.46)

2st

t(127.38) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.88)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(115.98) = 0.59, p = 0.557, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.52)

2st

t(127.31) = 1.67, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.86)

ras_confidence

1st

t(100.66) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.21)

2st

t(127.88) = 1.74, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.32 to 4.83)

ras_willingness

1st

t(97.76) = 0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.17)

2st

t(127.14) = 2.19, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (0.11 to 2.13)

ras_goal

1st

t(103.06) = 0.43, p = 0.670, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.57)

2st

t(128.00) = 2.62, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.15, 95% CI (0.52 to 3.72)

ras_reliance

1st

t(97.88) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.40)

2st

t(127.19) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.48)

ras_domination

1st

t(111.08) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.94 to -0.01)

2st

t(127.51) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.98)

symptom

1st

t(92.22) = -1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-7.35 to 0.98)

2st

t(121.39) = -2.07, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 1.22, 95% CI (-9.60 to -0.22)

slof_work

1st

t(93.23) = 0.60, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.72)

2st

t(123.12) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.57 to 3.19)

slof_relationship

1st

t(97.44) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.95)

2st

t(127.00) = 1.79, p = 0.076, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.28 to 5.62)

satisfaction

1st

t(104.45) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (0.59 to 6.39)

2st

t(127.97) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.27 to 6.97)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(96.35) = 1.30, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.64)

2st

t(126.38) = 0.69, p = 0.491, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.22 to 2.53)

mhc_social

1st

t(102.15) = -0.14, p = 0.891, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.51 to 2.19)

2st

t(127.99) = -0.68, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.87 to 1.90)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(100.11) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.86)

2st

t(127.80) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.44 to 4.03)

resilisnce

1st

t(100.88) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.63)

2st

t(127.90) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.31 to 4.29)

social_provision

1st

t(106.00) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.17)

2st

t(127.88) = 2.35, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.41)

els_value_living

1st

t(100.33) = 1.99, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.55)

2st

t(127.83) = 2.14, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.12 to 3.22)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(98.40) = 3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (0.95 to 3.56)

2st

t(127.38) = 2.12, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.11 to 3.22)

els

1st

t(97.02) = 3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (1.20 to 5.87)

2st

t(126.78) = 2.43, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.63 to 6.16)

social_connect

1st

t(93.56) = -0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.06)

2st

t(123.61) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.89, 95% CI (-8.27 to 0.85)

shs_agency

1st

t(99.46) = 1.68, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.80)

2st

t(127.67) = 1.83, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.19 to 4.77)

shs_pathway

1st

t(98.71) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.77)

2st

t(127.48) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.91)

shs

1st

t(98.14) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.64 to 6.36)

2st

t(127.29) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.94 to 7.40)

esteem

1st

t(121.03) = -1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.11)

2st

t(127.39) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.64)

mlq_search

1st

t(105.12) = 0.46, p = 0.644, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.72)

2st

t(127.93) = 0.39, p = 0.700, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.09)

mlq_presence

1st

t(103.31) = 0.55, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.24)

2st

t(128.00) = 0.52, p = 0.604, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.60 to 2.74)

mlq

1st

t(103.38) = 0.57, p = 0.569, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.01 to 3.64)

2st

t(128.00) = 0.52, p = 0.605, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-2.58 to 4.42)

empower

1st

t(95.69) = 1.11, p = 0.270, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.77 to 2.73)

2st

t(125.90) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.55)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(112.74) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.79)

2st

t(127.41) = 1.10, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.62 to 2.17)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(99.95) = -2.94, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.13, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.64)

2st

t(127.77) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.49)

sss_affective

1st

t(96.74) = -1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.50)

2st

t(126.63) = -2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-4.02 to -0.37)

sss_behavior

1st

t(99.69) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-3.07 to 0.18)

2st

t(127.72) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.93, 95% CI (-3.94 to -0.02)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(94.92) = -0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.39 to 0.81)

2st

t(125.21) = -2.85, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-4.52 to -0.81)

sss

1st

t(94.36) = -1.46, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.73 to 1.17)

2st

t(124.62) = -2.66, p = 0.009, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-12.01 to -1.76)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(64.07) = 1.76, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.01)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.54) = 1.06, p = 0.587, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.79)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(51.95) = 1.82, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 3.09)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(50.52) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.68)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(53.17) = 1.70, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.93)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(50.57) = 3.21, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.50 to 2.16)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.52) = 2.50, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.03)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(47.85) = -1.32, p = 0.384, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.90 to 0.80)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(48.33) = -1.00, p = 0.644, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.62)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(50.36) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.97)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(53.89) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.77 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(49.83) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.92)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(52.70) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.06)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(51.68) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.34)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(52.06) = 1.65, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.65)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.70) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.20)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(51.79) = 0.93, p = 0.710, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.42)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = 0.70, p = 0.975, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(50.15) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.41)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(48.49) = -1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.76 to 1.05)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(51.35) = 0.82, p = 0.834, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.90 to 2.15)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.98) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.12)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(50.70) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.94 to 3.05)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(64.22) = 1.01, p = 0.630, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.97)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(54.24) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(53.30) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.42)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(53.34) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.67 to 1.93)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(49.51) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.79)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.50) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.11)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(51.60) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.21)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(50.02) = -2.07, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.14 to -0.03)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(51.47) = -1.26, p = 0.426, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.45)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(49.14) = -1.72, p = 0.182, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.14)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(48.87) = -1.94, p = 0.115, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.47 to 0.09)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(64.07) = 0.83, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.31 to 0.76)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.54) = -0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.51 to 0.83)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(51.95) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.93)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(50.52) = -2.37, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-1.30 to -0.11)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(53.17) = -1.83, p = 0.146, Cohen d = 0.52, 95% CI (-2.00 to 0.09)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(50.57) = 1.15, p = 0.512, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.31)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.52) = -1.27, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.48 to 0.33)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(47.85) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(48.33) = -1.30, p = 0.402, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.44)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(50.36) = -1.12, p = 0.535, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.71 to 0.77)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(53.89) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.21)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(49.83) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.31)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(52.70) = 1.10, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.88)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(51.68) = 0.70, p = 0.969, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.72)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(52.06) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.40)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.70) = -1.48, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.28)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(51.79) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.03)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = 1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.86)

els

1st vs 2st

t(50.15) = 1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.68 to 2.55)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(48.49) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.83)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(51.35) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.98) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.31)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(50.70) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.31 to 2.68)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(64.22) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(54.24) = -0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.79)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(53.30) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.34)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(53.34) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.78 to 1.83)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(49.51) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.04 to 1.26)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.50) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.06)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(51.60) = -1.27, p = 0.423, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.37)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(50.02) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.12)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(51.47) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.99)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(49.14) = 1.96, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.02)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(48.87) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.70)

Plot

Clinical significance